Is it time to separate religion from politics?

[N.O.R.F]

Ailamos,

 

Although India claims to be secular what we need to remember is that it is a Hindu majority country. This invariably means the Hindu cast system is used to discriminate against people (both Hindus of lowers casts and non Hindus). In addition, we are all aware of the animosity between the various religions.

 

Malaysia on the other hand has similar demographics in that it is a country inhibited by people of many ethnicities, races and religions although not as populated. Malaysia is a Muslim country and has developed it’s version of Sharia Law. This has enabled it, over the period of 60 years, to develop into a first class country where it’s residents abide by it’s laws and where wealth is spent on all in all regions (this doesn’t happen in India).

 

When you analyse the two (Indian version of Secularism (with it’s flaws) and Malay Sharia (with what you may think are flaws), where would you rather live?

 

ps I'm only going by what you've written so far

[ailamos]

^ I'm back! oh boy, good point there Nor... hmmm.. which one would I rather have? :confused: ... well, I don't know in depth details about either country apart from what I read, and since what I read points in the direction that both are pluralistic countries so I would live in either one...

 

Having said that bear in mind that both countries have their flaws: concerning India, the 2002 Gujarat violence between the Hindus and the Muslims and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism... as for Malaysia, the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials, the Lina Joy affair and the recent "Allah" violence come to mind...

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

it baffles to no end that modern Somali or Muslims fail to wrap their head around a logic that men 18th century did.

[N.O.R.F]

Ailamos,

 

Correct. When looked at on an individual basis, every country has it’s flaws. Those flaws can be with the actual laws and/or the administration thereof.

 

What I’m getting at is the blanket belief held by both camps that both systems are totally free from flaws. It will always be down to how it is interpreted. Saudi Arabia’s interpretation of Sharia is different to Malaysia’s but each have their flaws as the laws will not always be administered. The French are ultra secularists and their form of governance differs to that of the UK with recent changes in law contradicting the very same secularism they champion.

 

So the Sharia vs Secular argument is not as straight forward an argument as many think. You can scrutinise countries and their application of Sharia/Secular laws but to try and compare both systems when different countries have different interpretations and practices of both is slightly misguided.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

^How do you feel as a minority in this debate? Should people abandon secularism you would be forced to learn ayu nooc christian beliefs and doctrines in school other public forums? Honestly, as a minority in a predominantly christian nation what is your opinion?

[N.O.R.F]

^You're getting annoying now Naxarow. All you seem to be intrested in is asking questions after questions without really taking part (see other threads as well). For a change, why not give us your take on the issue (a basic requirement)? Why not attempt at answering my earlier questions? Maalayacniga inaga daa!

 

ps see my location

[alisom]

Interesting!

[burahadeer]

Just being realistic.The same way we were before & after colonialism.Sharia is dictarorship,& anything heavy handed doesn't work with somalis(few yrs maybe).Because u really have to enforce it.Al shabab is really a fluke.History will write me correct.SHABAB can't go beyond belet weyn up north,& the chances there r absolutely nil-because people in those areas have settled with too much freedom,& they won't let it go.We can argue about it,but please let me know if it becomes anything closer to it.It won't happen.

[Khayr]

Sharia is dictarorship

That is the image that is spewed all over the media - chop hands and chop headsetc. Thats corporal punishment and not shariah as a whole. The Shariah is the legislative part of the deen that governs how to we interact with each other be it dealign with property lines between neighbors to defining how gets the zakat money etc. These laws are from the islamic tradition and no one particular group has a monopoly on them because islamic law has developed over 1400yrs and can not be redefined or redeveloped, so as to "reform" it.

 

The idea of a dictatorship is that one regime, one man dictates and defines what is the rule of law and reforms it to shape their agenda. That is an abuse and dhulum/wrong doing.

 

In Islam, it is the islamic tradition that checks regimes by means of the sayings of the islamic scholars (majority of them and not one isolated scholar that wants to reform the religion).

 

Muslims leaving in the western hemisphere and those largerly educated by the media and blogs, have developed the western biase - that Shariah means corporal punishment (Chop, Chop and Veil those women).

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Khayr:

These laws are from the islamic tradition and no one particular group has a monopoly on them because islamic law has developed over 1400yrs and can not be redefined or redeveloped, so as to "reform" it... In Islam, it is the islamic tradition that checks regimes by means of the sayings of the islamic scholars (majority of them and not one isolated scholar that wants to reform the religion).

The above encapsulates the central problem with Islam - you can't undertake much needed reforms for fear of offending Islamic dogmas. No wonder, then, that virtually the whole Islamic world (Ummah if you will) is in such a sorry state; Islamic countries are WHO, Unicef, WFP, HRW, Amnesty International disaster zones. The prohibitions on questioning authority and dogma have engendered societies that shirk critical thought and questioning authority be it politic or religious. It isn't really surprising to find the Islamic world is a fertile ground for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

 

Khayr, is that what you're really defending?

 

 

Originally posted by Khayr:

The idea of a dictatorship is that one regime, one man dictates and defines what is the rule of law and reforms it to shape their agenda. That is an abuse and dhulum/wrong doing.

This is interesting. Are you saying Allah is wrong? Since Sharia is largely based on Allah's laws and commands, Allah would be the equivalent of that "one man" that dictates and defines what is the rule of law. Just as in a dictatorship, Allah's laws are not open to questioning, revision, repeals, reforms, debates etc. The bottom line is: under Sharia power will be in the hands of few (clergy) who are unaccountable to anybody and political competition is unlawful.

[burahadeer]

Originally posted by Khayr:

quote:Sharia is dictarorship

That is the image that is spewed all over the media - chop hands and chop headsetc. Thats corporal punishment and not shariah as a whole. The Shariah is the legislative part of the deen that governs how to we interact with each other be it dealign with property lines between neighbors to defining how gets the zakat money etc. These laws are from the islamic tradition and no one particular group has a monopoly on them because islamic law has developed over 1400yrs and can not be redefined or redeveloped, so as to "reform" it.

 

The idea of a dictatorship is that one regime, one man dictates and defines what is the rule of law and reforms it to shape their agenda. That is an abuse and dhulum/wrong doing.

 

In Islam, it is the islamic tradition that checks regimes by means of the sayings of the islamic scholars (majority of them and not one isolated scholar that wants to reform the religion).

 

Muslims leaving in the western hemisphere and those largerly educated by the media and blogs, have developed the western biase - that Shariah means corporal punishment (Chop, Chop and Veil those women).

Yes,it's dictatorship.Men r enforcing it, & the qabiil is very,very much intertwined.Do u know at least 40 members of the 100 member excutive body of the islamic courts were of the

same qabiil.It never worked,& it will never work.

It will always be heavy handed,ruthless & uncompromising.Go for it--but I know u can't cross Beletweyn up north.Try-& you fail.I'm waiting on the side line.

Ganbaraan ugu fadhiyaa.

[burahadeer]

If they want to compete under normal,legal democratic process, & the people vote for them,& they will in turn repeat the same process to work,& abdicate power if they lose--it's fine.But they never talk about parties,democratic process,and they never give power back.That is not an option for us, and who ever wants to try to usurp power by force,well,it's a fantasy in today's somalia.Keep dreaming.

GANBARAAN UGU FADHIYAA.

[burahadeer]

It's not the image spewed all over the world.It's the truth.You know what I compare the islamists--the black afrocenterics that blame hurricanes on the white man.They r in self denial.They never tell people what is in store for them,but many of us know better.The world is getting smaller my friend.You r talking simplistically,i.e-to settle property lines between neighbors---who to give zaka.Buuu.You want more than that.They didn't take guns,didn't blow themselves up to settle property dispute between neighbors.People settle by families,qabiil,penal court,local islamic courts.And why should they worry about who I give to Zaka---there r so many candidates out there.There is nothing like freedom,& the people ain't giving back to you.